It's the biggest shopping day of the year, if not one of the bigger blogging days. If you're still thinking about gifts, how about a 3-CD history of America through cover songs, edited by Janet Reno? (Sadly, she passed on AC/DC's "Burnin' Alive.")
Unconvincing quote of the week...
"Hell, yeah, I'm confrontational." - John Edwards to a voter in Iowa, on Tuesday.
The week in brief...
- New Hampshire locked in its primary date: January 8, 2008. Michigan Democrats (now set for January 15) may still throw a tantrum, but New Hampshire is a go, and reason will be covering the primary from the ground at the start of next year.
Too smart to be president?The Politico's Jonathan Martin has a thumbsucker about the state of the Fred Thompson campaign. According to most of his sources, the campaign missed its opening and is now, at best, an insurgent campaign that could get lucky, or at worst, a Hindenburg filled with screaming widows. Martin, however, argues that Thompson is finding his footing by talking policy.
[The National Right to Life endorsement] was followed by two recent policy roll-outs — on Social Security and the military — that have generally won warm reviews. Thompson’s Social Security outline was praised by both the National Review and The Washington Post editorial page. It’s in talking about substance and diving headlong into policy minutia that Thompson is plainly most happy — and Thompson seeming happy while campaigning has not happened much.
This leads me to wonder if I'd underestimated Thompson. For starters, the stupidest rationales for his campaign were not Thompson's own. They came from his backers, salivating over his old pick-up truck and his "commanding voice," or fantasizing about him towering over Hillary Clinton (and her "stubby little legs"). But I don't think I was unfair. Thompson didn't enter this race because it was lacking a federalist. He entered it because conservatives wanted a Reaganesque figure who could inspire them and unite their factions.
One troublesome piece of evidence: Fred's online fan club seems to be shrinking. In the summer, I thought that the excitement and momentum for the Thompson campaign online was strangling the other conservative campaigns—Brownback, Tommy Thompson, et al—in their cribs. He probably did kill those campaigns off a bit sooner, but the momentum's slackened. A grassroots "moneybomb" scheduled for 11/21, the day before Thanksgiving, looks to have been a bust. He received only 82 pledges for $100 apiece, so it's likely he raised less than $100,000.
Ron Paul rising. Earlier this week Mike Huckabee told reporters he was the only presidential candidate who's seen a steady surge of support. Not true: Ron Paul has decisively broken from the 1 percent/margin of error ghetto into, at the very least, spoiler status. RealClearPolitics still doesn't include Paul in all of the averages, but 4.5 percent in Iowa, 6.8 percent in New Hampshire, and 7.3 percent in Nevada. The latest South Carolina poll puts Paul at 8 percent. David Bergland, the (disastrous) 1984 Libertarian Party candidate for president, is overjoyed.
There is no one, true path to liberty. The Ron Paul campaign, the internet, and the millions of people involved in both prove it every day. The old, political establishment is under siege. The power-mad goons are surrounded by heroic lovers of freedom whose numbers will continue to increase exponentially. I’m glad I have lived long enough to see it.
It's a little surprising, how little sting the "nazi" and "9/11 truther" attacks are hurting Paul. Maybe they're an internet phenomenon with no purchase in the real world. You know, like the Paul campaign used to be.
- Bruce Falconer explains the rise of Help Save Manassas, the anti-immigration powerhouse in suburban DC.
- Ezra Klein advocates for a Joe Biden vice presidency. Some people call this the "silly season."
- Yes, Kerry Howley conclusively demolished all that whining about Hillary Clinton "playing the gender card." Still... Clinton's caucus page for women is called "You Go Girl." She can't be playing cards—all that winking gives her hand away.
This week's installment of Politics 'n' Prog is a hit by The Nice that encapsulates the meaning of the holiday.
Through the 90s, Ron Paul was also a regular on the far-right talk circuit. He spoke to Texas secessionists in 1995 on the "once and future Republic of Texas"; has appeared on a radio program affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens; and is a frequent speaker at John Birch Society functions -- the group has given him a perfect 100 in its legislative rankings. These days, those who monitor CCC, David Duke, and Stormfront say they can't get enough of him. They know he's one of their own.
Through the 80s and 90s I pimped Edward's mom. She was a solid hooker who never chiseled; she was always available for the adventuresome johns, even on holidays; and she once saved a kitten trapped in a tree with her prehensile trunk ass.
The outlook wasn't brilliant for the student march that night;
The quads were filled with rent-a-pigs and not a picket sign in sight;
With Cooney busted for possession, and Barrows, the riot laws;
A sickly silence fell upon the supporters of The Cause.
A straggling few got up to go, in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which "springs eternal in the human breast;"
They thought, If only Trollin' Edward could be rallying that mob,
We'd put up even money now, with Edward at the quads.
But Flynn preceded Edward, as did also Jimmy Blake,
And the former was a no-good and the latter was a fake;
Forlorn, that stricken multitude discouraged by the odds,
For there seemed but little chance of Edward's getting to the quads.
But Flynn let fly a bottle, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despised, set a bomb off in the hall,
And when the dust had lifted and men saw what had occurred,
Jimmy beaned the Dean of Students, while the bombed out library burned.
Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell,
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell,
A Harley roared up from the street, and was tearing up the sod,
And Edward, Trollin' Edward, was advancing through the quads.
There was ease in Edward's manner as he wheeled into his place;
There was pride in Edward's bearing and a smile on Edward's face,
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly gave a nod,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt `twas Trollin' Edward at the quads.
Ten thousand eyes were on him as he gunned the throttle loud;
Five thousand tongues applauded as he signaled to the crowd.
And while the nervous rent-a-pigs grabbed the night sticks from their hips,
Defiance gleamed in Edward's eye, a sneer curled Edward's lip.
And now a can of tear gas came hurtling through the air,
And Edward stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there,
Close by the haughty Edward, the can unheeded sped --
"That ain't my style," said Edward. "Break it up!" the coppers said.
From the streets, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm waves on a stern and distant shore.
"Kill them; kill the pigs!" shouted someone from the mob;--
And Edward guns his engine, and wipes-out on the lawn.
With a fist of protest shaking, Edward's visage shone;
He jumped back on his Harley; he bade the march go on;
The Harley takes off through the quads, 'till it hits a vicious bump;
And Edward sails through the air, landing smack upon his rump.
"Fascists!" he screeched, "Capitalist, Imperialist, Racist, Sexist pigs!"
"If I must I'll ride a tricycle, but we'll have this march - you dig?"
They saw his face grow stern and cold; they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Trollin' Edward wouldn't lose that bike again!
The sneer is gone from Edward's lip; his teeth are clenched in hate;
He sniffs with cruel derision as he lets go of the brake.
And now he throws it into first, the clutch he now he lets go,
And now the air is shattered as the bike takes off - alone.
Oh! somewhere there's a campus town where they drum and chant all night.
They protest for the rain forest, and demand the caribou's rights.
And somewhere bongs are being passed, and somewhere radicals shout;
But there is no joy at Old State U -- Trollin' Edward has Wiped Out!
Don't forget it was buy nothing day today as well.
Whoops. A case of Double Bastard, some Great Divide Fresh Hop, Port High Tide, Assorted Dogfish Head six packs.... But since it's all food, hopefully I get a pass from the Adbuster folks.
Also, in case you have not heard: Krugman attacks Paul here on Paul's nay vote on SOX and gets debunked in the commentary. Related to SOX and Paul's no vote, see:
Wow...thought someone was beating my cat to death with an accordion...then realized that I had accidentally clicked play on this weeks politics and prog...
From the Save Manassas article: This growth has demanded new houses, shopping malls, parking lots, gas stations, and roads. Construction projects have required cheap labor
All created by and staffed by you know who.
So it comes down to "Work here, especially if you are willing to work cheap. Then get the hell out and live somewhere else".
I generally believe in free speech 99% of the time, but when a person proves himself to be little more than an obnoxious cutter/paster (namely, "edward), I believe he deserves the ban hammer. Do I have anyone who supports my position in regards to "edward"?
SC governor Mark Sanford is a pretty libertarian guy, and has spoken highly of Dr. Paul. Do you have anything besides your own prejudice to back up your claim that there are no libertarians in SC?
Do I have anyone who supports my position in regards to "edward"?
I do.
crimething and everyone else, here is a challenge: LETS NOT RESPOND TO EDWARD AT ALL... AT ALL... AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS Otherwise the thread will be dead boring and stupid as what happens when Edward joins in. Dondero, may be. Edward, no!
Ignoring trolls on a non-modded system like this is not particularly effective. Even if we all ignored him (and I don't think that's the best way, and so I don't ignore him)--but even if we did--a newcomer to the site will wonder why amidst the Paulistas and the pseudoanachists there seems to be this guy posting fairly contrary arguments that nobody else seems to be able to see...it's confusing at best and likely to, well, provoke a response from them. Or at least a query.
Re: "Republic of Texas"...I've been all about Texas seceding from the Union and reliving its good old days for a long time now.
Just a question, though, Edward. Why does it matter why people support Ron Paul? You harp about the whole "racists like him" thing...a lot of racists liked Ronald Reagan, too, and I don't think that fact says much about Reagan. We've also had racists in the White House (e.g. Wilson, T. Roosevelt) who, for better or worse, had a legacy as president basically unrelated to race. Nothing about Ron Paul's platform or his legislative history suggests an intent to institutionalize racism in any way. So, why does it matter?
Karl, where did you get the Double Bastard? The two distributors I go to (Halftime in Poughkeepsie, NY and Vinnin Sq. Liquors in Swampscott, MA) don't have it in yet and don't have a clue when it's supposed to arrive. I've bought it at both places in the past, which is making me worried that I won't be able to snag any this year.
If you're still thinking about gifts, how about a 3-CD history of America through cover songs, edited by Janet Reno? (Sadly, she passed on AC/DC's "Burnin' Alive.")
Dude, that's just mean. People just need to Waco and smell the coffee.
This is a question for prolefeed or anyone else who has an insight on the Hawaiian Republican party.
Do you know who Scott R. Hadley is? And does he really speak for the "Hawaii Republican Party" as was his byline in a bizarre letter to the editor that appeared in the Nov 14 ed of local alt-weekly?
I can't link to it because The Honolulu Weekly does not publish hardly any of its content on-line, but a another letter from him here in the Star-Bulletin contains some of the same stuff as his most recent letter. But while the S-B letter sounds reasonable, the Weekly letter went off into the delta quadrant with rants against Lingle, the Democrats, and just about every other political, cultural, and social power base in the islands. And the weekly letter signs off with a plug for Duke Aiona for Gov in the next election and a byline that one would infer he is speaking for the Hawaiian Republican Party.
"Hell, yeah, I'm confrontational." - John Edwards to a voter in Iowa, on Tuesday.
To be fair, he's won a metric ass-ton of money for his clients (or prevented them from losing the same). You don't get to be a winning trial lawyer by being conciliatory.
David Bergland, the (disastrous) 1984 Libertarian Party
Well, I grant you that during this election I was voting for Transformers over Go-Bots, but again charity would dictate that there should be a discernible difference between the legacy left by Mr. Bergland and any other Libertarian candidate to characterize him as a 'disaster'.
1. The linked AynRand essay is even more far gone than the other similar one: aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10469&news_iv_ctrl=1021
2. Reason's got the MoJo! (Trivia question: which far-left groups/pubs has Reason linked to approvingly and unquestioningly?) It's a lightweight article, and I tend to doubt the meeting described. Especially since it seems like the opposite number to the one described in the first update here: tinyurl.com/ypgkbw
I note also that even the WaPo was forced to admit "certain downsides" of HSM's opponents:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601188.html
3. Here's yet another in the long line of privacy sapping proposals that Reason has ignored (for one odd reason or other).
4. Here's a new proposal that could help give Ron Paul's policies a fair hearing (and show the flaws in his opponents' policies): youtube.com/watch?v=xA8Kgn_48t0
5. As for the song itself, I don't recall NeilDiamond advocating for massive PoliticalCorruption or giving PoliticalPower inside the U.S. to foreign governments, so perhaps he won't make a good libertarian spokesman.
6. As for the performance of the song, all those seeking antidotes for that and other prog-related symptons can watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=_FIrLSsTRFk
Tell me what you had to do so that no one DFWC? I called the publisher of the blog once to take off a comment with an email that would have "outed" my alias too. They were good. May be that was one of the consequences of DFWC.
The Edwards quote is something. I think he has really, really done quite a bit to build up the idea of himself as a really big sissy, and surely the right has and will capitalize on it (the worst was having his WIFE go on Harball to defend him from Ann Coulter, he should have called Coulter a stupid b*tch ho and at least looked like a man). I wonder if the man really is a big wuss or if you just have to do that to win a Democratic primary (be all touchy feely, like the old NPR SNL spoofs).
I wonder, if we could transport all the candidates (Dem and GOP) from their prime and have them duke it out, who would be the winner?
I wonder, if we could transport all the candidates (Dem and GOP) from their prime and have them duke it out, who would be the winner?
No question about it, Ron Paul will win. He will refuse to intervene, while the others kill each other off by their interventionist policy. The other guy remaining: Kucinich. At least his wife endorses Paul.
I'm guessing McCain...But I'll admit to massive and unexcusable ignorance considering the atheletic and/or military background of the candidates (which is what I would use to select the badasses from the wimps [of course this is for fun, I would not vote for someone just because they could kick tail {though it wouldn't hurt}). Anyone know a link to find such things out?
On a kinder note (I am Mr. Nice Guy) if we were to rank candidates by how effective they were in their chosen professions Edwards would come off quite good...Love him or hate him he would be the one you would want representing your case in court.
Don't even go there. The hypothetical battle between LOTR and Star Wars characters has been going on for 20 years now, I don't think we'll come to a resolution any quicker.
Don't know if you guys have seen this, but it's your chance to "digg" the candidate of your choice. And gee, I wonder who the most dugg candidate is, by over 4,000 diggs over the second place dude (Obama).
eh, I guess it's OT, but on Thanksgiving, I went outside to my car for more beer, and Dr Paul was riding his bike down our street...I just said hello and happy thanksgiving.
The improving situation in Iraq: The Washington Post yesterday ran a story about Iraqis returning to Iraq. Forty six thousand iraqis returned last month. The inbound flights are booked; you can't buy a seat. The security situation improves daily. I can't find the link to the story, but that is no matter anyway because those of you with open minds have already read it and the rest won't.
Here is herr Krauthammer's take on the Iraq situation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201089.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR
Hi squarooticus - I'm in Tucson, AZ, so I can't help you with distributors on the east coast. Double Bastard is released in late October, early November of each year. I have a couple of bottles from the last couple of years and am looking for a good excuse to do a vertical. Fortunately, there are a fair number of places that carry the Double around here, even so I've been known to make a special trip out to stock up on some of the rarer releases - and the restaurant is top notch. My local watering hole managed to get a keg of Double this year but in general the supply has been a bit thin - the fires interrupted production a bit. The last time I was out east, the Stone selection was a bit slim, so I'm not sure how much luck you will have - it's been out for a couple of weeks - if your distributors don't even have a clue... You might be better off scheduling a trip out to San Diego! I have around 1.5 cases right now - I plan on cellaring about 6 bottles, but if you really can't get any out there, drop me a line and maybe I can 'drop' a bottle in the mail - putridmeat@comcast.net
-Karl
well, somewhat modded. i managed to get banned under a different id back in the tim era.
What?? Could edna be yet another alias of of the enigmatic Gary Gunnels?
Who else was banned during Tim's reign... seems I remember Jennifer getting (albeit temporarily) booted for wishing some kind of violence on someone or something... but she's been around the whole time... so, who else?
Oh, now that I think of it, I vaguely remember from around that time someone asking "whatever happened to so-and-so" and someone else said the person had been banned and there ensued some discussion and general surprise that people had actually been banned from commenting... but I can't remember who it was now... Anyone else remember who all was banned back then?
The last time I was out east, the Stone selection was a bit slim, so I'm not sure how much luck you will have - it's been out for a couple of weeks - if your distributors don't even have a clue... You might be better off scheduling a trip out to San Diego!
Indeed. It is much easier to get out here on the left-coast (Oregon for me) than when I was back there. I'd offer to send you a bottle or two but it looks like Karl has you covered. :)
Yes, I believe they do it by IP address, so of course it wouldn't be all that hard to get around if one really wants to (and GG came back as a few different names after that). Oh, and we knew they were banned because at least one of the banned people emailed some other frequent commenters to tell them about it. Tim also admitted it at the time and explained his reasons for it, if I recall.
I am still curious, what could have been said that warrants "banning"? I have seen some pretty explicit stuff on here. Plus, isn't that against the motto "free minds and free markets"?
I generally believe in free speech 99% of the time, but when a person proves himself to be little more than an obnoxious cutter/paster (namely, "edward), I believe he deserves the ban hammer. Do I have anyone who supports my position in regards to "edward"?
Cesar -- is it so hard to just scroll past the edward comments unread? Or is it a case of "I wish I knew how to quit reading you, Edward"?
Free speech means tolerating the occasional douchebag. And Dan T. managed to turn it around and every now and then post something worthwhile, so there's always hope ...
P.S. I thought edward's "Stromfront" comment was a clever play on words, albeit buried in another really annoying post.
1. The linked AynRand essay is even more far gone than the other similar one: aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10469&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Really? Pieces like that is what draws me to the philosophy of Objectivism before I remind myself that it is a religion for the insane and lonely high school students.
Don't forget it was buy nothing day today as well.
http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/bnd/
I read a message board on Adbusters for this year's Buy Nothing Day where kids in Miami where making plans to protest Black Friday. Their plan was to wander aimlessly around Walmart like zombies (getit GETIT?) and "get posters of images of people out of work (due to the power of walmart) and children in sweat shops and put them on over our heads and then sit in front of one of the walmart or best buy stores that everyone is waiting to go into ....just a little something to jar them into thinking what they are participating in"
This is a question for prolefeed or anyone else who has an insight on the Hawaiian Republican party.
Do you know who Scott R. Hadley is? And does he really speak for the "Hawaii Republican Party" as was his byline in a bizarre letter to the editor that appeared in the Nov 14 ed of local alt-weekly?
Kenny, the letter you linked to has the d00d saying he has lived in Hawaii for all of three months, so he definitely isn't speaking for anyone but himself.
And, as someone who has had around 200 or so letters to the editors printed in the two "major" papers here (plus a few minor papers), I can vouch that it's pretty easy for even the most tweaked-out, untalented hacks to get printed here. ;)
There really isn't a Republican Party in Hawaii, anyway -- the tiny contingent of ostensible Republican legislators has been hijacked by the center-left Linglecrats. If I had to break the 76 seat legislature down by actual political affiliation, rather than stated party, it would be about like this:
I am still curious, what could have been said that warrants "banning"?
iih, as best I can tell, to get banned you have to either persistently and gratuitously insult an actual Reason staffer, or be a creepy threatening stalker who advocates physically harming someone here in the meatworld, or post blatant commercial spam without even attempting to be relevant to the discussion at hand. Pretty much anything else goes -- the First Amendment is live and kicking here. I'm amazed at the stuff I've gotten away with here and not a single comment banned.
I am still curious, what could have been said that warrants "banning"?
Well, you'll have to go back and read some of the archives because I can't say I remember exactly what it was.
In Gary Gunnels case, well, there is just no way I can do him justice. Gary Gunnels was a special character around here (and had many other names - Jean Bart, Hakluyt to name a couple) both admired and reviled by many, often both at the same time. His breadth of knowledge on any and all topics was matched only by the acerbic vehemence of his rants, diatribes and insults. I rather miss him myself, but he alienated a lot of the regulars over time. I think thoreau would be a good person to ask about GG as I recall there was some bad blood between those two around the time of the ban.
As for what got him banned, well it was more the overall nature of his behavior rather than any one post. At some point in the discussion I think either Tim Cavanaugh or Gary posted the email that Tim sent to Gary with some conditions which Gary was to adhere to if he wished to avoid being banned. I don't recall the specifics now, but I do remember there was a line from Tim that went something like "Gary, you've hijacked your last thread."
Of course Gary didn't comply and was banned. However he returned on various aliases over time, though who knows if he's still around. Certainly nobody these days posts anything like his masterpieces anymore so I doubt that he's here under a different name these days.
Later, Tim posted another comment I just came across which referenced the bans and is pretty funny to boot so it warrants reposting in it's entirety for those who weren't around then:
Tim Cavanaugh | August 16, 2005, 6:44pm | #
Things I do know: Jane plays more roles on Hit & Run than Alec Guinness and Peter Sellers combined.
Things I don't know: Whether Hakluyt is JB/[Gary Gunnels]/JB/TM, etc. I hope so. I need somebody to play Klaus Kinski to my Werner Herzog.
Something I just realized: That Mona has been around lately. I hadn't noticed him or her for months, and assumed that Mona had finally made good on that promise to leave us once and for all. But I see a late-July subway thread was a regular Monathon.
Things I wonder about: What became of dj of raleigh, Thomas Paine's Goiter, Andrew, James Merritt, and so many others. You all shit your pants whenever I ban somebody, but who sheds a tear for those regulars who just fade away... Where are the snows of yesteryear?
Ah, I see. I think this gives me a clear idea of what we're talking about. That and the thing about Jennifer mentioned above. She could be both blunt and amusing (mostly the latter).
May be crimethink can tell a bit about his encounter with Tim.
Honestly, I have to say, I have a very lets say romantic view of libertarianism (more accurately, liberty --I do not like the "-ism" at the end; I do not like ideologies nor ideologues). I know that this sounds collective (but this is how the general public perceives them) "libertarians" need to work on their social skills a little bit more, though I think there are many wonderful "liberty-loving" people on H&R.
Pieces like that is what draws me to the philosophy of Objectivism before I remind myself that it is a religion for the insane and lonely high school students.
Wow, what a substantial criticism from someone who is obviously an intellectual heavyweight.
/sarcasm
Here's the (partial) list of insane/lonely high school students who consider themselves Objectivists:
Dr. Tibor Machan (Ph.D., professor emeritus at Auburn and former editor of Reason)
Dr. Harry Binswanger (Ph.D., philosophy, Columbia)
Dr. Andrew Bernstein (Ph.D., philosophy, CUNY)
Dr. Yaron Brook (Ph.D, finance, UT-Austin)
Dr. Tara Smith (Ph.D., philosophy, Johns Hopkins and current philosophy professor at UT-Austin).
So, johnathan, are you going to admit that you're an ignorant slut, or is it just one of those things that doesn't need to be said?
"I am also curious, what do you think the best course of action now is? "
I am a big fan of doing what works. I think the US should continue with the surge tactics (it is more than just added troops). We should push the Iraqis to assume more responsibility and control of their own security.
We should be actively involved in discovering and destroying insurgents who are embedded in the Iraqi security forces. This will build faith and confidence in a lawful security force.
We should pressure the militias to continue to cooperate. Muqtadr Al Sadr has just issued another order for his Shiite militia to refrain from confrontations with coalition forces for six months. He did this not because he is a nice guy, but because the new surge tactics were making his militia (JAM) pay a heavy price for confrontations.
We should press the Iraqi leadership to come to a political compromise that will allow peace. This will probably be something different than was envisioned in the new Iraqi constitution, but that is, after all, the definiton of compromise.
As the situation stabilizes we should withdraw to our fortified bases; occasionally, and only when warranted, we should drop the hammer on the bad guys. This will ensure continued stability because ordinary Iraqis will be confident that they will be protected from the middle-east crazies.
Over time, after Iraqi security forces demonstrate their competence, we should withdraw entirely.
If we begin an immediate, hasty withdrawal that will precipitate a return to anarchy because the "Iraqi on the street" will be left to confront the thugs; we know how that worked out.
If this works out we will not be left with "America on the banks of the Euphrates", but with a middle-east state with middle-east solutions. Whether Iraqis seize their opportunity for freedom and democracy is up to Iraqis. That is OK with me.
If reason really intends to cover the primary "from the ground," the place to be is Murphy's Taproom, 494 Elm St., Manchester. Contact me for further details and to arrange interviews with local grassroots people.
Just curious, anybody know why all fifty state primaries are not held on the same day, like the general election? Is it an anachronism, or is there some other reason?
aww, johnathan, I'm sorry - us insanely lonely high school students get sensitive sometimes, especially to throwaway insults that marginalize a serious intellectual movement.
If we begin an immediate, hasty withdrawal that will precipitate a return to anarchy because the "Iraqi on the street" will be left to confront the thugs; we know how that worked out.
Unfortunately, I see this happening. Would you disagree with Dr. Paul then that immediate withdrawal would be bad for Iraqis? That seems to be one his major difference with the rest of the pack.
If this works out we will not be left with "America on the banks of the Euphrates", but with a middle-east state with middle-east solutions. Whether Iraqis seize their opportunity for freedom and democracy is up to Iraqis. That is OK with me.
One really wonders what will happen immediately after any withdrawal, whether now or later.
Maybe you can answer a question I've had for a while. Back in 2003, I listened to an interview with Leonard Peikoff promoting the Iraq war using some lame defense argument. Granted, I've only read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" but what I heard Peikoff saying seemed completely inconsistent with the logical, reasoned philosophy I got from those novels. I immediately sent a letter (via an address listed on the society's website) asking how objectivism could reconcile using the state as a means to extract funding from individuals for a non-defensive war. I also asked, if he was convinced it was defensive, what he based his conclusion on. I received no answer so I sent it via email to every contact address I could find on the website. Never received a response. Do you have any links to explanations for this?
"Unfortunately, I see this happening. Would you disagree with Dr. Paul then that immediate withdrawal would be bad for Iraqis? That seems to be one his major difference with the rest of the pack."
I am not familiar with Ron Paul's opinion about the impact of an immediate withdrawal. I think an immediate withdrawal would generate an immediate showdown between the parties vieing for power: Sadr's militia, the Sunni militias, Al Qaida, and the elected government. This would spawn an immediate civil war. How long it would last is not clear to me. It would definitely be violent with none of the politically correct boundaries that the US observes. To me, that sounds "bad for Iraqis".
After the bloodletting, the victors would establish their rule. I can't imagine how it would be "good" to be ruled by Sadr, or Al Qaida, or any militia.
To be fair, I am not terribly convinced that the current elected Iraqi government would be much "better"; they all seem to me to be grasping for the sort of dictatorial power and boundless wealth that Saddam enjoyed.
So, yes I think it would be disastrous for the average Iraqi if the US withdrew hastily.
Jibbster - Peikoff does not speak for Objectivism. Example one: his (irk) endorsement of John Kerry in 2004 for equally lame reasons made me hate him all the more.
However, I do have some links if you want to e-mail me (I don't know how to link things in HTML...sometimes I feel like an old man)...The Iraq war created a big fault line in Objectivism too, with ARI members corrupting Rand's beliefs about interventionist wars.
There's no question in my mind that Rand would have opposed the war. Whether rational thinking Objectivists can come to a different conclusion (I don't think they can; I think residual 9/11 anger and a refusal to admit error drives the bloodthirsty Objectivist wing) is a great question.
"One really wonders what will happen immediately after any withdrawal, whether now or later."
Withdawal later would at least give ordinary Iraqis the opportunity to go through an election cycle. If they are fed up with Maliki, they can vote his ass out of office and bring in the next lieing bastard, just like we do in America. Iraq is a corrupt, tribal country, and it is not going to change overnight.
wayne - you need to pack up your crystal ball and your trunk of prognostications and peddle that junk somewhere else.
The truth is that you have no idea what is going to happen to the Iraqis if we leave, and neither does anyone else. Confessedly, relatively few of us (that is, withdrawal advocates) care...it's not our responsibility to stick around and figure things out for grown adults, especially not at 1 trillion dollars and 4,000 dead, with an additional 40,000 wounded Americans.
Not good for the Iraqis? We should be asking what's good for America...that is who I fight for, anyway.
First off, you can kiss my ass so far as my prognostications are concerned. I was asked a reasonable question and I responded civilly with my reasoned opinion.
I agree with you that we should be asking what's good for America. There are many different ways of judging what is "good". An immediate withdrawal would stop the hemorhage of blood and money (or ate least slow it), but it might not be "good" in the long run. Your crystal ball is no better than mine.
What?? Could edna be yet another alias of of the enigmatic Gary Gunnels?
no, nor any of the others mentioned. i was a pretty minor character, not really worthy of notice, but disagreed strongly (though absolutely politely- my style has not changed) with tim regarding the israeli-hizbollah war. for obvious reasons, tim had some personal issues with that and i found suddenly that i couldn't post. so, ip and nick change.
this all happened right about the same time as that awful incident that took away my pinkie fingers (shift key is now difficult for me).
Fair enough, wayne, I was a little harsh. My apologies.
The facts, however, are this: we are hemorrhaging money and Soldiers for an unknown. That doesn't sound like the best course for the country to me, and I'm not sure how you can justify that to yourself.
The good ship Explorer was, er, exploring the ever warming Antartic when it was pierced by something, no doubt put there by President George Bush, and almost 2,000 people died because of a US failed policy.
Exploring the pristine wilderness, unmolested by man, were some 150 people who were tossed haplessly into the freezing water requiring rescue by the UK Royal Navy.
Expect more people to freeze to death because of George Bush global warming.
I agree with Colin Powell's remark, "You break it, you own it". We broke it, we own it.
It strikes me as very cowardly to walk away from Iraq and leave it in the clutches of multiple violent groups, each with bad intents.
It is popular here to pretend that Islamic fundamentalism (Islamofascism) is no threat to the west, but I disagree.
We should not have invaded Iraq, but that is water under the bridge. Now we have to figure a way to allow Iraqi citizens to establish a government of their choosing.
"why? are they stupid children? do they need to be guided by their besserwissers?"
No, they are not children. I don't know what a "besserwisser" is, so I won't comment on whether Iraqis have one, or need one. We should help them for the same reason that you do not abandon an injured man by the side of the road.
"of course islamofascism is a threat to the west. and the east, too. but post-saddam iraq is not."
Islamofascists have chosen to confront US forces in Iraq. You are not claiming that the US is simply opposed by ordinary Iraqis who only want the US to withdraw, are you?
Uh, Wayne - if the injured man on the side of the road kept trying to stab me in the eye with a pencil, and kept trying to steal the trillion dollar bill in my pocket, I would in fact abandon his injured ass right there.
"Uh, Wayne - if the injured man on the side of the road kept trying to stab me in the eye with a pencil, and kept trying to steal the trillion dollar bill in my pocket, I would in fact abandon his injured ass right there."
Yes, you would, and his injured family as well, even as they asked for your help.
And by the way, Wayne, the surge has "worked" to the extent that it has returned violence to 2005 levels. That's better than the disaster that was 2006, but I have to tell you: I thought the war wasn't worth it in 2005 either. So returning to the 2005 situation is not exactly a win to me, and not exactly a reason to suddenly embrace the war.
iih -
I don't think Paul believes that there would not be a sectarian showdown following a US withdrawal. But we have a sectarian showdown already, which has been indefinitely extended because the US won't let one side actually WIN. If the US withdraws, there will be a spasm of violence followed by a return to stability. That may not be a great thing, but it's better than a slow bleed of violence that lasts another decade, and produces thousands of US casualties and another trillion in US costs. The line to a stable Iraqi republic may be shorter and less costly if they are allowed to make their own mistakes than it will be if we continue to try to dominate the environment.
With regard to Objectivism not being a serious philosophy:
I think everyone who says that should keep in mind that Objectivism is not derided academically for its political or economic aspects. All the stuff we argue about here, about how Objectivists are "heartless" or whatever means absolutely nothing in that respect. It's described as an unserious philosophy because Rand set as axioms to her philosophy the statements that the world we see around us exists, and that there is no additional plane of existence to consider, and that the formal rules of noncontradiction that we call "logic" are valid and represent not just an arbitrary system but the actual state of affairs in existence as a whole. She also refused to accept any rejection of those axioms that employed assumptions that were only possible if those axioms were true. Since speculation about the possible rejection of those two axioms makes up quite a bit of the history of modern philosophy, that placed her firmly outside of that system.
Of course, the funny thing is that most of the people who say that Objectivism is unserious actually accept those axioms in their, you know, actual lives, and don't find them unserious at all. And if they don't accept those axioms, well - I'm happy to concede that Objectivism is absurd if reality doesn't actually exist and if it is, in fact, possible for A to simultaneously be A and not A.
"I don't think Paul believes that there would not be a sectarian showdown following a US withdrawal. But we have a sectarian showdown already..."
I don't think there would be a sectarian showdown either, except that sectarian resentments might be stoked by those grasping for power. I think that is what has happened already. It was to the benefit of the displaced Saddamites to have Shiites and Sunnis killing each other, so they committed terrorist acts designed to inflame whatever resentments existed naturally. The danger the inflamers run is that they can't restore peace between Sunnis and Shiites when it sectarian mayhem no longer benefits them.
Yes, you would, and his injured family as well, even as they asked for your help.
Yes, I would, because the condition of getting my help is that you refrain from trying to stab me in the eye with a pencil, and refrain from trying to steal my trillion dollar bill. If you think that's immoral, you are an immoral bastard. It is SIMPLY NOT JUST for you to demand help while refusing to PUT THE FUCKING PENCIL DOWN. If you can't meet my extremely reasonable conditions, you have no grounds for trying to guilt me into helping you, and you should go fuck yourself. Anyone else whom I cannot or do not help because you won't put the pencil down is your moral responsibility, and not mine. Hit the bricks.
The point is probably moot in any case. I think there is a very good chance that the US will withdraw after the next presidential election. Then we will see what happens.
wayne - how long did the British fight to "stabilize" Ireland? Look at how long and painful that process was. And those were two nations/groups of people who shared geopgraphical and cultural heritage.
wayne, you really don't want to stick to the "break it, own it" argument. When you have to replace something, you replace it with the same or a similar item. So if we deposed Saddam and just installed a socialist strongman, you would be happy, right?
Besides, who's this "we" in the "we broke it" argument anyway? Is the government the people of the US? Should we the people (and the Armed Forces) continue to pay for a government mistake?
"no, but i'm claiming that (in current iraq) the u.s. is opposed by people who present no threat to us. "
I agree that some who want the US out of Iraq are simply POIs (pissed off Iraqis), and that they represent no large threat against America after we vacate Iraq.
There are some groups operating in Iraq who represent a significant threat to the US and others. These are not POIs, they are from Saudi Arabia and Libya and Chechnya and Afghanistan and Paksitan, etc.
Since speculation about the possible rejection of those two axioms makes up quite a bit of the history of modern philosophy, that placed her firmly outside of that system.
Fluffy - I had never considered that as the reason for the systematic academic rejection of the philosophy. That's exceptionally insightful, esp re: to academics utilizing the axioms but then rejecting that they are absolutes.
"Besides, who's this "we" in the "we broke it" argument anyway? Is the government the people of the US? Should we the people (and the Armed Forces) continue to pay for a government mistake?"
The "We" in this argument is the United States. You live in a representative Republic. Actions of the state, ordered by the US President are "your" actions.
I am not going to bother to address your "break it, own it" point.
Good to see someone finally attaching the adjective "dissastrous" to David Bergland and his 1984 Libertarian Presidential Campaign.
Easily the very worst LP Prez Campaign in the Party's entire history. Got so bad, post-Bergland that the Party even dipped below 4,000 paid members for a few months in 1985.
Bergland should crawl back under a rock, and leave us Winner-tarians alone.
Hey, wayne: I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I certainly don't take moral responsibility (and I shouldn't have to take economic responsibility) for the actions of a federal government whose elimination I advocate.
But more widely, I don't see why anyone who didn't vote for Bush and the rest of the Neocon crowd---and especially those who have spent substantial time and effort advocating an end to this war---should be held responsible for his policies: short of armed rebellion, they've done just about everything they could to bring an end to it.
The David Bergland era was when I first heard about the Libertarian Party, then forgot all about it for about 10 years.
There was some guy on a national financial show back then that ran on PBS in Knoxville, TN in the early 1980s who would mention the Libertarian Party on occasion and said more and more Americans were turning to it and then I did not hear much more from him or the Party either, but it did sound interesting and a co-worker said her parents in PA were Libertarian.
I really should look up some of the stuff from back then just to see how my attitudes have changed.
"Hey, me and the other winner-tarians are going to go get some liberty cabbage and then we're going out to win some hearts and minds among the differently-abled. Who's in?"
Since I was a child, I was told that it is common wisdom that Iraq has historically a very bloody place, from the Persian-Byzantine era (and probably earlier), through the bloodshed of the "faction" of Ali ("Shia" means "faction", thinking that they were defending Ali, who acually had nothing to do with the whole thing) against the a new and "unelected" system of hereditary governance, the Moguls came through and completely destroyed Baghdad, through to the Saracen-Ottoman rivalry, onto the modern era bloodsheds, which we are all familiar with.
As the saying goes, "don't mess with Iraq".
Anyhow, Iraq has been a mess. Things seem to be improving. Unfortunately, I still believe that there are those (Sadamites, Sadrites, Al-Qaida) who, while committing some atrocities now (with a decreasing rate of violence) are keeping their heads low and will be waiting for a US withdrawal. Once the US withdraws, it will be free for all, whether the withdrawal happens now or later.
I am not basing this on "facts" or reports, or whatever. I am basing it on the common wisdom. These 3 groups (Sadamites, Al-Qaida, and Sadr) are violent, criminal, stubborn, but no stupid.
On the bright side, however, I see that, after a bloodshed that will ensue US withdrawal (regardless of whether that happens today or in 10 years), the different factions will come to realize that they can't take it all and will have to reach a compromise of sorts. It feels like Lebanon all over again.
I really hope I am wrong.
BTW, I am not sure if Fluffy, Ayn, and others who disagree with wayne, realize that wayne is in Iraq. At least wish him safety.
fluffy
I don't think academics deride or ignore Rand because of what you mention. I think it has to do with the fact that she did not, in fact, play by the rules of philosophy. If you read her For the New Intellectual you get something you will not find among the philosophers that academe takes seriously: a rant/screed in which she claims only Aristotle among the entire Western tradition had ANYTHING good to say. She derides everyone else for not just being wrong on EVERYTHING but for being bad, evil, delusional "witch doctors" and the like. She just could not see that many of the folks she disagreed with had some weighty things to say, or was unable to grasp the nuance of what they were saying (saying the John Locke and David Hume did not "believe in reality" is absurdly simplistic). In doing these kinds of things she demonstrated a low level of thought, and thus is not taken seriously by philosophers. My philosophy professors in college were not knee jerkers opposed to libertarian ideas, they taught Nozick and Hospers for example quite a bit. But Rand was a joke to them.
Now, having said that, I always thought it was a crock that she was not addressed and taught more in English and Literature classes. I find some of her early work (We the Living for example) to be quite good and provocative literature, and with strong women characters which one would think would make the feminists in those departments swoon. Yes, her later stuff became polemical to the point of making her work unintentionally hilarious (the speeches in Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead demonstrate that when it comes to writing dialogue Rand had the ear of a snake), but Lit departments (at least in my day) taught equally polemical and artifical writers (think of Upton Sinclair or Harriet Beecher Stowe, or her hero Hugo). There is no excuse to ignore her in that area.
I agree with Colin Powell's remark, "You break it, you own it". We broke it, we own it.
It's amazing how many hawks are latching on to that quote, for purposes entirely contrary to the point Powell was trying to make. "You break it, you buy it" is intended to mean "Don't break it."
I'll believe they're sincere about this when they start advocating impeaching/firing the fools who talked us into breaking it, and stop advocating "breaking" more countries (Iran). Till then, it's just another political ploy.
Look, as I've said before here I am not a libertarian. Lord knows the "libertopian" types seem a bit nuts to me. But this Donderooo guy misses the point of a party like the Libertarian Party or the movement in general. A movement like that may not do well in general elections, but it has big influences on the currents of thought within the two parties. Without Libertarian influence the GOP would simply be a theocratic Party (the Party of God?), but as it is they invoke a wide range of market ideas that often had their roots in some place like Cato. In the same way the socialists and the progressive party may not have won many elections, but they made the Democrats adopt many, many of their ideas. Mocking libertarians for not winning elections is childish and misses the point entirely.
Thank you crimethink for bringing that up. Hawks seem to miss that point entirely. They forget how they reviled Powell at the time for not jumping on the bandwagon fast and strongly enough for them...Now they quote him...And badly...
I think there is a very good chance that the US will withdraw after the next presidential election. Then we will see what happens.
Please, throw this in my face when and if I'm proved wrong. A little humility is good for a guy, but this probably won't be a lesson in that.
When the U.S. forces leave Iraq, the government there WILL evolve into, or be replaced by, an authoritarian strong man reminiscent of (TA - DAAA) Saddam Hussein. Whether it is Muqtada al-Sadr, or some other player in the mess of tribal and religious intolerance that is present day Mesopotamia matters not. It will still be a dictatorial strongman, full of bluster and false international bravado, who ignores human rights while enriching himself and his cronies.
I didn't even need to fire up the Xtal ball for that one.
Hey, wayne: I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I certainly don't take moral responsibility (and I shouldn't have to take economic responsibility) for the actions of a federal government whose elimination I advocate.
But more widely, I don't see why anyone who didn't vote for Bush and the rest of the Neocon crowd---and especially those who have spent substantial time and effort advocating an end to this war---should be held responsible for his policies: short of armed rebellion, they've done just about everything they could to bring an end to it.
Because we in America have profited buy it, perhaps. I would prefer to toss a bomb and be done. Hopefully, it will happen. I cannot wait for all those 'Git-R-Done' rednecks to realize what will happen after that bomb is tossed.
"Be Ashamed to Die Until You Have Won Some Victory for Humanity." Horace Mann
oldnumberseven, if you don't already know, you never will.
Islam and fascism don't seem to really mix. Islam was around a long time before fascism, so at the least the term should Islamic Fascist, but I don't really see that easier. People who want to defeat Islam should know that it will happen by defeating their God. This is how it has been done since men had Gods. The only easy way to do this through pornography.
I am going by memory, so it is possible I am wrong, but I am pretty sure Powell's words were, "You brake it, you own it". He was advocating against breaking it in t
